Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

This is how a Westminster model is supposed to work

by Andrew Coyne on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:40pm - 43 Comments

The Australian Liberal party has just replaced its leader. It took all of a couple of days, from caucus revolt to leadership vote. That’s because the Australian Liberals choose their leader on the classic Westminster model: by a vote of the caucus, rather than, as in this country, by the wholesale purchase and sale of thousands of instant memberships, busloads of elderly drunks etc.

And they do this because in Australia they believe a party leader’s chief task is to lead the caucus in Parliament — because, in Australia, Parliament matters.

In the end, the incumbent, Malcolm Turnbull, lost to challenger Tony Abbott, 42 to 41. I pass no judgement on the proximate cause of Turnbull’s downfall, his endorsement of the governing Labour party’s climate change policy. But you can bet that any leader of the Australian Liberal party has to be awfully solicitous of his caucus’s views. The balance of power between leader and caucus is very different there than it is here, where MPs have aptly been described as “$140,000 voting machines.”

It also signals a strategic shift on the Liberals’ part: they intend to stand and fight on this issue, sharpening their differences with the government rather than minimizing them. Again, whatever your views, it’s refreshing to see a country where voters are actually given a choice.

Tags: Australia, leadership, Parliament, reform

More by Andrew Coyne

http://twitter.com/JamesHanna @JamesHanna

Thats not true; if the leader of the party was responsible to his caucus, all of whom were elected directly by voters, then he is responsible to the voters themselves. One presumes that he MP's all want to be re-elected. The current system allows an interested and involved subset of the voting public to choose a leader with no actual elected legitimacy, ignoring the will of those actually elected. On top of it, the system then allows this leader to choose his caucus by denying the party membership the right to choose their candidate. Our system has the caucus serving the PMO; not the PM serving at the will of the elected members.
oppo guy

"And they do this because in Australia they believe a party leader’s chief task is to lead the caucus in Parliament — because, in Australia, Parliament matters."

And we do it the OTHER way here in Canada (with increasing frequency it seems) because the Liberal Party doesn't have anything else to put in the window except for their leader.

That said, it is refreshing to see how the Westminster system actually works in other countries. Particularly as we mark the anniversary of its biggest detour in history at the hands of a prime minister who pulled out all the stops to deny the majority their democratic rights.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

We can hardly lay exclusive blame at the feet of the Liberals for dumbing down Parliament.(Though I'll admit the Liberals certainly have punched above their weight in this regard.) It's been a joint effort from all parties and our increasingly facile and infantile media.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

Thanks for pointing this one out, Mr. Coyne.

It never did seem right to me that roundabout these parts its simply called "elitism" and the parties buy into it.
MediaBuff

Party leaders should be hired by the members, and fired by the caucus. To file off the rough edges:

- caucus can only appoint interim leaders after they dump a leader
- members only get a vote if they were paid up prior to the dumping (the 'bus of drunks' rule)
- no nomination veto for leaders (no cherry-picking their caucus; more freaks, better politics)
- only caucus can boot a colleague from caucus, not the leadership

This gives all party members a voice in the leadership, but keeps the leader beholden to the caucus.

Obviously, things get interesting when the members choose a leader already unpopular with caucus. But that's just good political fun.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JSRobinson JSRobinson

An MP's job is to make good judgements, even if they go against the desires of their constituents. I can't see a way to spin this to make the Australian Liberals look good.